Bush India statement raises Congress concerns

[OhioChick]

Washington, December 21, 2006

A statement by President George W Bush issued in connection with the just-signed US-India civil nuclear cooperation law has raised concerns that Bush may try to circumvent some of Congress' intentions, lawmakers and analysts say.

The statement, clarifying Bush's views on law and policy, was issued after he signed new legislation on Monday permitting US sales of nuclear fuel and reactors to India for the first time in 30 years.

In the statement, Bush said his signature "does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy (in the law) as US foreign policy." Also in responding to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider how releasing data requested by lawmakers might "impair foreign relations."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1875746,001301790001.htm

<snip> "With his recent signing statement, once again the president has shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution," said Sen. Thomas Harkin of Iowa, a Democrat whose party will control a majority of the new Congress to be sworn in next month.

It was "outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to US national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal," Harkin said in a press release.

[OhioChick]

1. Oops.......Dupe Please Delete

[TomInTib]

2. They just cannot help themselves, can they?

I wonder why the Congresspeople aren't just screaming about this one.

They gave the WH everything they asked for.

Then * basically rewrites it.

[Supersedeas]

3. Dr. Condi will not be circumvented

[badgervan]

4. Dictatorship Unacceptable

One of the first things that the new Congress has to do is go back and overturn every damn one of bush's "signing statements". He uses the excuse of executive privilege in a time "of war". Last time I checked, we were not officially "at war" ( undeclared )... so this argument is bogus. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the executive branch the power of a dictator - no matter how much cheney, rove and the rest of these arrogant, power hungry posers in OUR White House would like that power.

[earlybelle]

5. So, bush can deal with non-signatories to the nuke rules but not Iran?